Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 665

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resective Epilepsy Surgery for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Review

Jobst, Barbara C., Cascino, Gregory D.·2015·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Epilepsy surgery is indicated for patients with focal seizures who do not respond to appropriate antiepileptic drug therapy consisting of 2 or more medications. OBJECTIVES: To review resective surgery outcomes for focal epilepsy, to identify which patients benefit the most, and to discuss why epilepsy surgery may not be universally accepted. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Medline and Cochrane databases were searched between January 1993 and June 2014 for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and large retrospective case series (>300 patients) using Medical Subject Headings and indexed text terms. Fifty-five articles were included. Subpopulations and prognostic factors were identified. Systematic reviews for cognitive, psychiatric, quality-of-life, and psychosocial outcomes were included. FINDINGS: Two randomized clinical trials enrolling 118 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy found greater freedom from seizures with surgery when compared with continued medical treatment (58% vs 8% [n = 80] and 73% vs 0% [n = 38], P < .001). Nine systematic reviews and 2 large case series of medically refractory patients treated with surgery reported seizure-free outcomes in 34% to 74% of patients (median, 62.4%). The remainder of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examined subpopulations. Epilepsy surgery was less effective when there were extratemporal lesions, the epilepsy was not associated with a structural lesion, or both. Seizure-free outcomes were similar between children and adults. Hippocampal sclerosis and benign tumors were associated with better outcomes relative to other pathologies. Similar procedures such as selective amygdalohippocampectomy and temporal lobectomy for temporal lobe epilepsy were associated with subtle differences in seizure and neuropsychological outcome. There is low perioperative mortality (0.1%-0.5%) from epilepsy surgery. The most frequent neurologic complication is visual field defect occurring from temporal lobe resection. Quality of life improved after surgery but improved the most in patients who were seizure-free after surgery. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Epilepsy surgery reduced seizure activity in randomized clinical trials when compared with continued medical therapy. Long-term cognitive, psychiatric, psychosocial, and quality-of-life outcomes were less well defined. Despite good outcomes from high-quality clinical trials, referrals of patients with seizures refractory to medical treatment remain infrequent.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2014.17426

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 665

Metadata

Authors
Jobst, B. C., & Cascino, G. D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2015-01-20
Volume
313
Issue
3
Pages
285
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1991623258
Cited by
665
References
50
FWCI
35.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resective Epilepsy Surgery for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.17426
The paper
Jobst, B. C., & Cascino, G. D. (2015). Resective Epilepsy Surgery for Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17426

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.